IESET.
Hypotheses·housing·social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth

Right-to-buy and social-housing privatisation transfers predict higher household wealth accumulation than continued state ownership.

PARTIALengine/runs/social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth

PARTIAL — coef=+87.63, p=0.966 (above α=0.1); direction inconclusive

confidence cueThe result is useful, but not decisive. Treat it as a clue, not a settled conclusion.

policy briefMixed or noisy

In ordinary language

Does the housing rule being tested make homes easier to build, rent, or afford, or does it quietly reduce supply and push costs elsewhere?

plain answer

The evidence is suggestive but not decisive. coef=+87.63, p=0.966 (above α=0.1); direction inconclusive

why it matters

Housing policy affects rents, mobility, household budgets, and construction. The test looks for measurable effects rather than relying on slogans.

how the test works

It compares 30 country or place units from 1970 to 2023, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Policy or institution proxy
What we checked
  • Primary sectoral outcome
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

No evidence packet has been generated yet.

Results

engine/runs/social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth
1007550250197019972023USAGBRCANAUSNZLDEUFRA
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show primary_sectoral_outcome across 30 sampled countries over 1970–2023.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth/chart_data.json.

Pre-registration

registration ordering unverified
first-spec commit 4c8ce8e · 2026-07-18T22:11:21Z
run generated · 2026-06-29T17:53:15Z
Run timestamp predates this path's first git-add commit (rebase, rename, or pre-git local run). Spec hash is still the path's first-add commit — not repository HEAD — but ordering is not a clean pre-registration proof.

Right-to-buy and social-housing privatisation transfers predict higher household wealth accumulation than continued state ownership.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED if the treatment coefficient has the predicted sign at p<0.10. REFUTED if the opposite sign is significant at p<0.10. Otherwise PARTIAL.

formal test & threshold
test:      panel_fe_social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth
threshold: p<0.10 with pre-registered sign

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, year
Clustering
country
Sample
30 countries · 1970 – 2023
Evidence type
associational

Proxy-first TWFE screen; upgrade to bespoke replication when exact sector datasets are fetched.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
primary_sectoral_outcome
outcome
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
level_or_growth_proxy
policy_or_institution_proxy
treatment
constructed:1 for GBR from 1980 onward; NZL from 1991 onward; SWE from 1991 onwardtier 5
indicator_or_level
log_gdp_pc
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log
rule_of_law
control
wgi:RL.ESTtier 4
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth

Verdict: PARTIAL — coef=+87.63, p=0.966 (above α=0.1); direction inconclusive

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Right-to-buy and social-housing privatisation transfers predict higher household wealth accumulation than continued state ownership.
  • Falsification rule: SUPPORTED if the treatment coefficient has the predicted sign at p<0.10. REFUTED if the opposite sign is significant at p<0.10. Otherwise PARTIAL.
  • Falsification test: panel_fe_social_housing_privatisation_tenant_wealth

Estimate

  • Method: linearmodels.PanelOLS
  • Coefficient (treatment): +87.63
  • Std error: 2070
  • p-value: 0.966
  • Observations: 1202, countries: 23
  • Within R²: 0.0486
  • Fixed effects: entity=True, time=True
  • Clustering: country

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → primary_sectoral_outcome (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • constructed: 1 for GBR from 1980 onward; NZL from 1991 onward; SWE from 1991 onward → policy_or_institution_proxy (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=1620)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → log_gdp_pc (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • wgi:RL.EST → rule_of_law (controls, publisher=wgi, n=5296)

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:53:15+00:00

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.